Re: Better idea.
As far as I can tell VoT sees only BSD is the true heir of V7 although I might have misinterpreted.
33005 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"little more than an administrative expense"
Just as well. This is punishment for misleading investors shareholders. Unless it's a personal charge on Boeing management or directors* it's shareholders' money. Shareholders are being fined for having been mislead.
* Or cab be recovered from them by shareholders.
When money gets a bit tight it's not surprising if businesses start to cut back on discretionary expenditure and advertising is going to fall into that category. That sort of cutback will be restored when business picks up.
What's very likely worrying Google senior management is that their customers' senior management might start asking harder questions about advertising policy. Questions like "Does tacking really pay off? How much money are we spending showing adverts to somebody who once enquired about $PRODUCT, who's then bought it, isn't going to buy another and is more and more unhappy about having pointless ads shoved in his face?"
When those sorts of questions start to get asked Google's allegedly value-added services start to get questioned and that might be a hit from which it will be far harder to bounce back.
I remember the Beeb having a real fireman examine Zaha Hadid's famous award winning fire station. It didn't emerge well from that, there were comments such as the ends of handrails being dangerous to any one running through the building - which tends to happen in fire stations. In fact I think the building was repurposed not that long after it was opened but her reputation was unblemished.
I will certainly blame the architect who insisted a corner office's windows should meet right in the corner so that it would appear that the wall above was magically floating without support (I think they award each other bunny points for this). It would have been OK if the walls were magically supported but in fact they were supported by a concrete pillar set a foot or so back from the corner. This blocked a good deal of the light from the windows but probably did little for the heat loss.
Just as well that was my boss's office. Mine next door was on a plain wall and had a reasonably sized, unobstructed window but it made his a miserable dark hole to visit.
I worked in a lab, built c 1970, where the first floor structure was a tubular steel framework supporting some sort of floor blocks above and a false ceiling below. I've no idea what the floor blocks were made of as they were hidden below vinyl covering.
It resulted in a sprung floor for our lab. Haematology had a rather sensitive top-pan balance for weighing out microgram quantities of reagent. Leaning forward to read it more clearly caused the reading to change.
Whenever I hear tales of campus IT I'm reminded of KCL* where the outage of the central IT lost - permanently IIRC - large amounts of user data. Users who had made their own arrangements for data storage would, I assume, have been OK. After everything had been restored i was reported that in future users should store data centrally. I assume the message would have been received as "We didn't lose your data last time. You have to give us a better chance now."
* My initial IT experience was as a user in a University so I always view campus IT from a user's PoV and that goes double for KCL as that had been my original college some years earlier.
This depends on circumstances. Legislation (e.g.GDPR) can make provision for personal responsibility to fall on the relevant officials of the company. And ultimately the relevant company law may make management and/or directors personally responsible causing the company to breach that law. There is, of course, good reason to think that these sanctions are not applied often enough or that they result in scapegoating when they are.
"And generally they have a dozen attendees where only 2 or 3 people will actually speak."
I found the typical work meeting would consist of:
One or maybe two user representatives.
Two other people* who would be the others** actually working on the project***
Any number of people with nothing positive or negative to contribute.
At least one sheet anchor**
* May also include user representatives
** Usually familiar faces because they'd filled the same roles in meetings on other projects
*** I would usually manage not to avoid wasting time with meetings where I wouldn't be working on the project
You would need to drill down that "sometimes regret". Does it mean they sometimes miss some former colleague or the like? Does it mean they don't find themselves better off? Having moved out of science I did sometimes find myself missing working in a lab environment but not for one moment did I think I'd done the wrong thing.
That 66% is a meaningless statistic without a good deal more explanation.
But four days where? At home or local? Or at the end of an insanely long, expensive and ultimately unsustainable commute?
Apart from Moggie we've learned that there are alternatives to the city-based long commute employment model that post-war planning regulations ave created. Now is the time to take what we've learned and start building something more rational.
"I had a 40 minute commute, through nice countryside."
So did I, at least for the half of it closest to home.
"I always found it a useful time to decompress and get work out of my mind"
So did I but only at the end of the day, not at the beginning.
I also, at one time, had about an hour and a half each way by train. A quick calculation showed it was the equivalent of working every weekend for no pay.
How does the economics of hybrid working using public transport work out?
It's a very long time since I had to do this but as I remember it the season ticket was a good deal cheaper than day tickets on a 5-days-a-week basis but would it be cheaper for 3-days-a-week? Even if it would the cost per day would still be perceived as greater.
Also, if most workers choose Tuesday to Thursday as their in-office days what effect does this have on the costs of running the transport network?
The article referenced its LSE listing. Because of your selective quoting I had to review the Wikipedia entry myself to check that TFA wasn't in error.
The nationality of a company is a rather multidimensional metric, especially for a tech company. Where is it registered for tax purposes? Where is it listed (and where are its shareholders)? Where are its administrative offices? To which jurisdiction(s) are its data exposed? These can all be different. And where, in these days of remote working, are its employees and what are their nationalities?
"You're right that HR is there to protect the company but, in the UK, that means treating employees fairly and according to the law"
Or at least it means ticking the boxes to present a case that employees have been treated fairly and according to the law and avoiding any documented evidence that they haven't.
"Those whose roles are specialised, or vocational are shat on ever harder, because their skills are not easily transferrable to the private sector."
Back in the day it came as a shock to TPTB when I handed in my notice and I don't suppose for a minute things have improved. I'd had the temerity to develop skills that were transferable. Somewhere I still have the letter denying my stated reason for leaving.* It was sent at the same time as I was being offered instant promotion - no promotion board and outside the annual cycle - to stay.
* Essentially that they'd left me stagnating on top of the SSO grade for years when the so-called "career grade" was PSO, one grade higher.
"if you can even call the current ERG and Britannia Unhinged-driven regime a Tory government"
I don't think I could.
Meanwhile, in a move that may well win the Brass Neck of the Month competition, Rees-Mogg has been calling anti-frackers (largely in his own party) "Luddites". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62993487
Yes, if it's an incoming archive from any source, whether or not you believe it to be trusted, treat it as untrusted and look where it's going to extract to. At the very least it saves you from having to tidy up a directory if you the archive's path doesn't start with a daughter directory - or even if it has a daughter directory with the same name as an existing one.
It seems a bit garbled. I read it as saying that if you back up through enough parent directories you will end up at / but that ignores what happens if there are too many .. levels. Will it stop there or throw an error and do nothing? The latter would mean that malicious use would require either a lucky guess or steering the user to a specific level in the hierarchy in the first place.
The real problem here is running an untar out of immediate user control. It's best to run tar -t or use the equivalent functionality in a GUI archive manager such as Ark. That way you can be sure you know what might be affected.
On the one hand the copyright interests on training data affecting the output is a very obvious issue. On the other, the stock image shops are middle-men who can easily be bypassed by AIaaS.
Now the stock image shops are clearing the decks by removing AI images from their own shelves. What happens next?
"the lines of improved design safety and less explodey battery chemistry will cross about 2025"
As someone said in a previous comment, lead-acid batteries are less explody anyway and if you want something that just sits there and doesn't have to be carried about you don't need to worry about the actual weight. The real thing that's wrong with it is that it's old technology so nobody stands to make any money from the royalties.
"With all six units synchronised and spinning-in-air (water is dispelled by compressed air and the unit draws a small amount of power to spin the shaft at full speed), 0 MW to 1800 MW load can be achieved in approximately 16 seconds."
Wikipedia article on Dinorwig. The same source gives 75 seconds from start to sync without such preparation.
The commute is a large part of why people are unhappy with being forced back into the office and that stems from decades of centripetal movement of offices into city centres. The citiy centres become so heavily populated during the day that they need increasingly larger areas to house the staff and that means longer commutes.
Perhaps a happy medium would be to close down the central offices and replace them with several smaller hubs, possibly shared working spaces, located closer to where employees live. That way commutes can be short so that hybrid working would be more acceptable, those like yourself unable to find a satisfactory environment at home can be provided for and we can dispense with a mode of life which is environmentally unsustainable.
Once upon a time I had a new employee assigned to me. Unexpectedly as nobody told me he was coming until he arrived. He only lasted a few weeks; shortly after he started it was announced the company was relocating about 200 miles away. Maybe remote working would have suited him better. Just a counter-anecdote.